Christianity as the message of love

[Medicine*Woman]

water: Really? That reading a book or listening to some people should have such an effect on you -- to become a "blood-sucking zombie"? Or do you believe in voodoo?
*************
M*W: The point is, I was self-entrapped in christianity, then I set myself free. No one forced me to become a christian. I did it to myself. I wanted the rules. I wanted to learn the rituals. The problem was, although I truly believed for a time, the truth started to slowly become clear to me -- and how do you think I reacted to the truth? I stayed in total denial. I wouldn't accept what I had started to understand, and I forced myself even harder to "obey" the rules of the faith. The harder I tried to stay in denial, and of course with the help of my christian friends, I began to see how possessed they were with christianity! And, voodoo...??? The closest thing I ever came to voodoo was when I was a "blood-sucking zombie christian." Voodoo is very real -- if you believe in strongly enough. Christianity is just another word for voodoo -- if you believe in it strongly enough.
*************
water: Then what does this say about YOU, if you can be corrupted so easily?!
*************
M*W: The point is, I freed myself from christianity BEFORE I was totally corrupted (in a spiritual sense).
*************
water: And WHO ARE YOU that you think you have the right to impose yourself into other people's lives that way?!
*************
M*W: I don't impose myself into other peoples' lives! They have the choice to read my posts and reject them if they don't agree and prefer to stay entrapped. It's always the individual's choice. NO ONE -- NOT ANY PERSON CAN TAKE SOMETHING FROM ANOTHER PERSON WITHOUT THEIR WILLINGNESS TO GIVE IT AWAY!!! I was a "victim" of christianity for a time, but my entry into it, and my departure therefrom, was totally my decision.
*************
water: Exactly. It is the futility of YOUR Christian belief system. It is YOUR understanding of Chrstianity that was flawed, insufficient, marred by bad personal experience.
*************
M*W: No, I don't think so! I was very much mainstream in my christian beliefs, and a catechist for a number of years. I wasn't a christian growing up. I taught all grade levels as well as adults about the faith. I didn't learn from previous experience, I was taught individually by church elders and priests. I became personal friends with my priests, and I was very, and I mean VERY active in my church. It wasn't "my understanding" of christianity "that was flawed," it was christianity, itself! If I am wrong about this, then why is christianity dying worldwide today??? Only 25% of the world's population are christian. The other 75% are non-christian.
*************
water: But now you are acting like a god, doing as if you knew what Chrstianity truly is about -- when all YOU know is YOUR experience of Christianity. And this is not the only experience of Christianity there is.
*************
M*W: Maybe that's YOUR impression, but you're wrong. Like I said, I did knew what christianity was all about, and my personal experience as a christian wasn't bad -- not bad at all. I enjoyed it and was committed to it! I traveled the world to learn all about my religion, and I did in the least likely of places. I just wanted to remain ignorant and blissful, but the truth overcame me. It took me some time before I would "give up" my religious addiction, but I finally conquered it, and today I have been clean and sober for nearly 20 years!

 

[fadeaway humper]

SnakeLord, you are, as always, selflessly wasting your fingertips (as you well know), but reading your stuff is still a fine pleasure. Never mind the freaks (I mean, the bollocks)!

 

[SnakeLord]

SnakeLord, you are, as always, selflessly wasting your fingertips (as you well know),

Yeah

But it's raining outside..

but reading your stuff is still a fine pleasure

Very nice of you to say so.

 

[fadeaway humper]

Very nice of you to say so.

And I mean it. You are like the big brother I never had.

Wait, I do have a big brother! But he's an ortodonthist (I'm sure you get the picture).

 

[suzukisfrog]

jesus won't come back until we clean up pollution. he just told me that. honest injun.

 

[duendy]

jesus won't come back until we clean up pollution. he just told me that. honest injun.

OK. let's play. i HAVe just drank Dionysos
('Jesus' and 'Dionysos' names are etymologically connected (Allegro).

and i walk through the city. and i see the city people look like androids. walking very fast, eyes forward going here, there, to destinations all very busy and preoccupied. i am walking slowly and observing.

I am very aware of the pollution, and grime, and hecticness, and people begging on the street.
I notice worried faces with no joy in them very clearly. Yet i feel ecstatic and have to keep myself from jumping about even though i am seeing all of this mad machine going on. i can look upand see the sky, and the ocasional trees, and birds. and all that is magic. whilst all the built up business is alien. No one smiles, and therer is a menace with some faces. like they would srping on you if you showed too much of how you are really feeling

you want to go to the nearest park

 

[Woody]

Snakelord,

About Adam & Eve having eternal life before the fall:

The biblical text does not support this claim. god goes on to say: ".. he must not be allowed to to reach out his hand and pick from the tree of life too, and eat and live for ever!"

The tree of life was denied after they sinned, so that A&E would not live eternally in the state we are in now. Bible text says sin results in death. Before A&E sinned there was no death, heence they had eternal life.

So god kicked them out specifically so they would not get eternal life, which negates a claim stating that they had eternal life at any time during their stay in Eden.

Bible: Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Lust isn't necessarily sexual. Eve's desire to be like God is an example.

I am curious to see how you can support a claim that they did have eternal life. You state that: "as far as we know". I would like to ask who the 'we' refers to, and how they come to that conclusion.

Because God promised they would receive death if they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If they were going to die anyway, then no need for a warning.

“ They could talk to animals and vice versa before the transgression. ”


I can't find any textual support for this, (other than the snake who most would claim wasn't an animal, but was satan - in which case, it would be an angel they were conversing with. Ok, so according to christians, he wouldn't have been a very nice angel, (fallen), but an angel nonetheless. As a result, they wouldn't have been talking to an animal.

I don't know exactly what transpired between man and the animal kingdom, but there were some big differences before the fall.

“ They had it made in a paradise lifestyle. ”
They had made what?

They had a life of ease and abundance without a care in the world. I'll take a Tahiti vacation on a luxury liner over my job any day.

Let's not fool ourselves, man was put there to be a gardener, not to live in a life of luxury. And for what purpose? You claim they had eternal life, in which case they would be gardeners forever, not witnessing anything die, (and thus not being able to eat meat - removing any reason to have incisor teeth), no kids, no knowledge, and no worthwhile future.

I love gardening. I have cherry trees, blueberry bushes, stawberries, a cactus garden, rhododendrons, azaleas, a pear tree, and american pau-pau (a tree with a large banana like fruit that tastes like egg custard and papaya.). I'd be glad to send you the seeds. They should do very well in england with all the rain you get there. The seeds have been found in dinosaur feces. Dinosaur's loved them too.

Maybe it's just me, but what is the value of that? It's like being in a prison cell that's nicely decorated. You're still not gonna get anywhere no matter how nice it looks.

Seriously Woody, what is the purpose for two individiuals to spend eternity as gardeners? What benefit does it give them or god?

I'd trade with them.

Or, as the text would support, they didn't have eternal life - and thus would eventually die having spent their entire lives as god's gardeners. Again, what benefit is there for them or god?

Adam ended up a gardener anyway and so did Cain, but it wasn't easy because of the weeds and thorns. They didn't have round-up back then, or pre-emergent herbicides.

“ Eve is given pain in childbirth. ”

True, but then humans have stepped above god, and removed the pain with drugs. His curse is getting closer to completely meaningless.

I beg to differ with you there. Even with modern medicine it's not fun. My wife had morning sickness (throw up every day) that continued for years after the baby was born. She had a spinal epideral, and it counteracted the birth process, the baby started going back in instead of coming out. My wife was in labor for 15 hours. All her clothes and shoe sizes change. She got a stomach hernia, and required gall bladder surgery as complications from the pregnancy. She is on nexium as a result of the complications. No -- it wasn't easy by any means.

“ Adam has to earn a living by the sweat of his brow. ”

And funnily enough, you can learn that a bit of excercise and hard work is actually good for you and makes you live longer.

Stress makes a person sweat too. That's how I earn my living. Stress shortens a man's life through increased risk of heart attacks. Job related- stress is the number one complaint among workers in america. A lot of people are on prozac, zoloft, and other medications so they can cope with the workplace.

Of course, god's curse more involved the ground not providing it's crops - but that has been negated thanks to fertilisers and gained understanding of how to cultivate land. This doesn't generally apply to the poor Africans, or Middle Eastern people who do face the problems god speaks of here. Their land wont produce crops, but that is down to weather issues mainly, and if it's down to god's curse instead, then it obviously doesn't affect anyone on this side of the planet. We now spend our time and money trying to help those that are still affected by god's curse.

“

They both started aging and eventually die. ”


They would have done so anyway, and you can show nothing to support the claim that they wouldn't.

“ That's a pretty high price to pay to find out what it means to be "wrong." Nobody wants to be wrong. yet that's the hard knock that Adam and Eve took, not just for themselves, but for all humanity. ”

Hard knock? No. If it wasn't for them eating the apple, they'd still be gardening, and none of us would be here now.

Actually Adam proclaimed marriage and childbirth before the fall of humanity. They would have had children anyway, regardless of the tree of good an evil.

“ We still have pain in childbirth, I still sweat for a living, and everyone still dies. ”

A) My wife had it relatively pain free both times, and medicine is only improving..

B) I don't sweat for a living, instead I sweat for fun when I'm not working, as do the countless millions who enjoy football, tennis, jogging, weight lifting, canooing, and sitting in a sauna.

C) Yes we all die. However, if you do some research, you will find one truth: Life expectancy is rising. From 30 years, to 40, to 50, and now?

Adam lived over 500 years according to the bible -- no medicines, no research, no doctors.

Medicine is getting better, god created diseases are being exterminated,

People didn't have much problem with diseases until after the time of Noah.

the poor are being educated and fed thanks to the caring of others, and in general life is improving all around, (except for the religious groups who go round annihilating any humans who disagree with them).

Our church is helping people, we don't kill anyone. Our God commands us not to kill, we try to obey.

If you looked at a chart showing the life expectancy growth, you'll know that given time that figure will just keep getting higher. Life wont ever be eternal, but no man in his right mind would wish for eternal life. Any rational person would admit it would get somewhat boring after 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. There would simply be nothing left to do or see or say.

Yes, I agree 100%. Life without God would be pointless. God knew this as well, hence the tree of eternal life was removed from Adam's reach.

If heaven gave eternal life, then heaven would eventually be hell.

I asked the wife , and she says that doesn't make sense to her. Me either.

All of this aside, I still see nothing to show that Adam and Eve are in any way responsible, or understood that they were doing anything 'wrong' by eating the fruit. Nor do I see any justification for god busting Cain's balls over his offering. All in all you should be thankful to the snake, for it was he who gave you the chance of life.

The snake was just a snake, and the devil was in charge of it. God held Adam accountable, though the woman was to blame:

Bible:

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

So there it is, Adam was accountable for Eve's transgression, and he was there with her when it happened, did not stop her, nor did he refuse the fruit when it was offered.

 

[Woody]

MW said,

I came to sciforums as a believer in god but not in the dying demigod savior concept. I lost that when I was in pagan St. Peter's. But I believed in a creator, and by damn, I had the philosophy to stand by my theistic belief.

Why do you believe you were a christian at one time? What determines if a person is a christian or not in your opinion?

Did you ever ask Jesus Christ to save you? How old were you?

Did someone explain how to get saved? What did they say? What did you say?

Did you get baptized?

Why do you consider your former belief to be an addiction?

Do you believe in a creator? Do you want to be at peace with him? What does he want you to do in your own life for your own benefit?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Woody: MW said, I came to sciforums as a believer in god but not in the dying demigod savior concept. I lost that when I was in pagan St. Peter's. But I believed in a creator, and by damn, I had the philosophy to stand by my theistic belief.
*************
Woody: Why do you believe you were a christian at one time? What determines if a person is a christian or not in your opinion?
*************
M*W: Because I believed God was the father almighty. He made heaven and earth, all that is seen and unseen. I believed in Jesus Christ, the only son of the Father, begotten not made, one in being with the father. I believed Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and was born of the Virgin Mary and became man. I believed He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and buried and descended into hell. On the third day, he rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is sitting at the right hand of the Father. I believed that Jesus would come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom would have no end. I believed in the Holy Spirit as the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and Son he is worshipped and glorified. I believed in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, the holy *catholic church an apostolic church, the communion of saints, one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the dead, and the everlasting life of the world to come which will have no end.
(*The word "catholic" refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.)

This is what I believed as a christian. I don't know what others believe as a christian, because there are so many interpretations.
*************
Woody: Did you ever ask Jesus Christ to save you? How old were you?
*************
M*W: Well, most certainly, and I believed at that time that salvation was the ultimate thing to look forward to. I was christened as a baby into the Methodist Church, but I was not raised in any religion. I converted to catholicism as an adult of about 23 years old when I was officially "re-baptised" into the faith. I started having doubts about christianity in 1978, but I was in denial until approximately 1985 when it became more clear to me the evils of christianity. It was around 1988 when I overcame the denial I was in and could finally break free of the hold on me. I never said it was easy. That's when I started reading and researching everything I could about christianity, so I could understand how one could get so caught up in it. I'm no spring chicken now. My grandchildren are almost grown. I have no plans in this lifetime to ever go back to being suppressed by any religion.
*************
Woody: Did someone explain how to get saved? What did they say? What did you say?
*************
M*W: As I explained earlier, salvation was explained to me, and I in turn explained it to many other people. I've explained my former christian beliefs.
*************
Woody: Did you get baptized?
*************
M*W: Not once, but twice. They just wanted to make sure it took.
*************
Woody: Why do you consider your former belief to be an addiction?
*************
M*W: Because it was so hard to leave and stop believing what I'd been programmed to believe. I wanted to believe, and I set myself up and allowed myself to become addicted to christianity. It's no different from being addicted to alcohol, work, sex, food, or whatever. There is still the suffering through the grieving process of a loss through a state of shock and denial (I lost something I belived in. I can't believe this is happening to me!). Followed by a period of anger (Why is this happening to me? What did I do to deserve this?) Then comes the bargaining stage (I could have prevented this from happening if...). Then depression, confusion, and doubt set in (I don't care anymore. I give up). Finally, after a period of time, I accepted what I had learned from my experience as a christian, and I quit blaming myself for believing the lies christianity told. I also forgave myself for my willingness to become enslaved (addicted) by something that proved to be false. I also had to forgive myself for teaching christian doctrine to so many others and propagating its lies.
*************
Woody: Do you believe in a creator?
*************
M*W: No, I do not believe in a creator like christians believe. I believe humanity is our only creator.
*************
Woody: Do you want to be at peace with him?
*************
M*W: I cannot be at peace with a creator that doesn't exist! I'm at peace with myself.
*************
Woody: What does he want you to do in your own life for your own benefit?
*************
M*W: There is no "He," but for my own benefit, I've already done everything I've set out to do, and I did it well. Now I'm continuing my pursuit of the truth as I understand it.

 

[SnakeLord]

The tree of life was denied after they sinned, so that A&E would not live eternally

But if they already had eternal life, (before the sin), then the tree would be of no consequence. god would just say: "hey presto! eternal life removed", and be done with it. The tree would have no function whatsoever. The very principle is that they had two choices and made the 'wrong' one. They could have eaten from the tree of life, but did not. Instead they ate from the tree of knowledge, and as god wasn't willing for them to eat from both, had the tree of life guarded so they couldn't get to it.

The biblical text doesn't even hint at them having eternal life before sinning, and giving that up by sinning.. but that they never had eternal life, but could have done if they had have eaten the fruit from that tree instead.

Before A&E sinned there was no death, heence they had eternal life.

There also seems to be no mention of there being 'no death' before their sin, and it goes against every bit of available evidence man has. Certain animals only eat meat. We call them carnivores. This would include lions, tigers, eagles and tyrannosaurs rex. Vultures wouldn't survive for very long without feeding on the meat of the dead, and we can see just by looking at their teeth, that these creatures are unable to eat vegetables and fruit. That's an undeniable fact.

As a result it is extremely 'suspect' to try and claim the G of E was death free. Survival for many species is dependant upon death.

Also given that Adam and Eve were the only two people who were in the G of E, it's a little presumptuous to claim they had eternal life merely because they hadn't died yet.

The biblical text does not support your claims that they had eternal life at any stage of their stay in the G of E. As a result, you have no valid case here.

Because God promised they would receive death if they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If they were going to die anyway, then no need for a warning.

No no, you've made a mistake. god says that if they eat from the tree, they would die that same day, (of course this is dependant upon version). Some versions skip this because they know damn well they cannot reconcile it. Ok, some have attempted to reconcile it by saying: "well, 1 day is 1000 years to god", which is not very realistic given other speeches of his throughout the bible. For instance, in the Noah episode he says the flood will start in 7 days, (which would mean in 7000 years time), and would last for 40 days, (40000 years).

Religious people can't just choose one method of calculating time for one speech, and a completely different method for the other - unless it were supported in the text, which it clearly is not.

god's warning shows that if they eat from the tree, they would die right here, right now. The snake said otherwise, and was shown to be correct - and not only correct with that, but correct with everything else he said aswell.

I don't know exactly what transpired between man and the animal kingdom, but there were some big differences before the fall.

Such as, and supported where?

They had a life of ease and abundance without a care in the world.

Where is that supported?

I'll take a Tahiti vacation on a luxury liner over my job any day.

And perhaps they would too rather than spend their days as god's gardeners. The very purpose was for that, and the woman was just made to 'help' Adam with his job, not to help with his life of "ease and abundance".

I love gardening. I have cherry trees, blueberry bushes, stawberries, a cactus garden, rhododendrons, azaleas, a pear tree, and american pau-pau (a tree with a large banana like fruit that tastes like egg custard and papaya.). I'd be glad to send you the seeds. They should do very well in england with all the rain you get there. The seeds have been found in dinosaur feces. Dinosaur's loved them too.

A Mark Twain comment has relevance here, (I've updated it slightly):

If you charge a man £500 a day for flying lessons in a jumbo jet, he will give you all his savings. If you pay a man £500 a day and say it's now a job, he wont want to do it anymore.

We have hobbies, and get enjoyment out of them, simply because we are not forced to do it all day, every day. Once it becomes an obligation, it loses it's appeal.

And no disrespect, but dinosaur poop doesn't in any way change the statement that they were there to work.

I'd trade with them.

That doesn't explain it's value to them or god. Why does god require a gardener, and what life of 'ease' do they have when forced into being gardeners - especially for all eternity.

Adam ended up a gardener anyway and so did Cain, but it wasn't easy because of the weeds and thorns. They didn't have round-up back then, or pre-emergent herbicides.

Sure, but that doesn't explain what benefit they would get out of a life as god's gardeners, or what benefit god himself would get out of it.

I beg to differ with you there. Even with modern medicine it's not fun. My wife had morning sickness (throw up every day) that continued for years after the baby was born. She had a spinal epideral, and it counteracted the birth process, the baby started going back in instead of coming out. My wife was in labor for 15 hours. All her clothes and shoe sizes change. She got a stomach hernia, and required gall bladder surgery as complications from the pregnancy. She is on nexium as a result of the complications. No -- it wasn't easy by any means.

That's one example, and while it's not very nice, perhaps she sinned and is paying for those sins, or perhaps nature has just dealt it's bad cards in that respect? However, with a little more time, the methods of pain reduction will have improved a great amount - and eventually childbirth pain will be a thing of the past.

I wonder though, why would an animal suffer from childbirth pains? Are they too guilty of some kind of sin?

Stress makes a person sweat too.

Well.. I've heard stress makes you lose hair, smoke more, eat more and drink more - but I've never heard of stress making you sweat.

Job related- stress is the number one complaint among workers in america.

A very sweaty nation?

Actually Adam proclaimed marriage and childbirth before the fall of humanity.

Where does it mention childbirth before the fall? It's not in my bibles.

They would have had children anyway, regardless of the tree of good an evil.

Where does it say that?

Adam lived over 500 years according to the bible -- no medicines, no research, no doctors.

Yeah, just a few years longer than god threatened...

People didn't have much problem with diseases until after the time of Noah.

So, what was their purpose back in the G of E? Or are you claiming that god went about creating new creatures after the flood?

Our church is helping people, we don't kill anyone. Our God commands us not to kill, we try to obey.

It's all a fraud though.. Here's an example:

http://in.news.yahoo.com/050116/139/2j1rp.html

That's how you guys do things, it's for purely selfish motives. When you go help the starving in Africa, you do so by shoving a bible in their face. If you helped a muslim or a jew it wouldn't be: "here's the help you need, now be happy as a muslim/jew" etc. No, it would be: "Here's the help you need, now become a christian".

Yes, I agree 100%. Life without God would be pointless. God knew this as well, hence the tree of eternal life was removed from Adam's reach.

While it's good to see you agreeing 100%, you're actually agreeing to something I never said. Read it again.

I asked the wife , and she says that doesn't make sense to her. Me either.

That's not a surprise given the fact that you didn't understand my last quote.

So there it is, Adam was accountable for Eve's transgression, and he was there with her when it happened, did not stop her, nor did he refuse the fruit when it was offered.

And with no knowledge of good or evil, there's no reason they wouldn't have eaten the fruit.

 

[water]

M*W: The point is, I was self-entrapped in christianity, then I set myself free. No one forced me to become a christian. I did it to myself.

In that case, you cannot say
"From history and from personal experience, I believe christianity is the greatest evil in this world. It has the power to take your mind away, and you become a blood-sucking zombie."

It is not Christianity's fault if you "did it to yourself".

Blaming Christianity and saying it is evil is like blaming the knife you used to cut you.
Can you really blame the knife?

I wanted the rules. I wanted to learn the rituals. The problem was, although I truly believed for a time, the truth started to slowly become clear to me -- and how do you think I reacted to the truth? I stayed in total denial. I wouldn't accept what I had started to understand, and I forced myself even harder to "obey" the rules of the faith. The harder I tried to stay in denial, and of course with the help of my christian friends, I began to see how possessed they were with christianity! And, voodoo...??? The closest thing I ever came to voodoo was when I was a "blood-sucking zombie christian." Voodoo is very real -- if you believe in strongly enough. Christianity is just another word for voodoo -- if you believe in it strongly enough.

Already then, you have *treated* Christianity as an addiction -- so this is all it was for you.
You are blaming the drug for you being the druggie.

All that happened then is that yu realized that the way you approached Christianity is not healthy, but then by throwing away your unhealthy approach, you also threw away Christianity.

It's like taking the position that one should never trust anyone again -- based on one's experience that one has been betrayed some time.

M*W: The point is, I freed myself from christianity BEFORE I was totally corrupted (in a spiritual sense).

But you refuse to give others that credit?

M*W: I don't impose myself into other peoples' lives! They have the choice to read my posts and reject them if they don't agree and prefer to stay entrapped. It's always the individual's choice.

You have a bad, bad attitude.
You presume others are entrapped -- while you simply know better?

NO ONE -- NOT ANY PERSON CAN TAKE SOMETHING FROM ANOTHER PERSON WITHOUT THEIR WILLINGNESS TO GIVE IT AWAY!!!

I hope you are listening to yourself.
Next time you get robbed, remember, it was you who allowed the robber to rob you.

I was a "victim" of christianity for a time, but my entry into it, and my departure therefrom, was totally my decision.

So how can you say Christianity is evil -- when it was all *your* doing, entering and exiting?

water: Exactly. It is the futility of YOUR Christian belief system. It is YOUR understanding of Chrstianity that was flawed, insufficient, marred by bad personal experience.

M*W: No, I don't think so! I was very much mainstream in my christian beliefs, and a catechist for a number of years. I wasn't a christian growing up. I taught all grade levels as well as adults about the faith. I didn't learn from previous experience, I was taught individually by church elders and priests. I became personal friends with my priests, and I was very, and I mean VERY active in my church. It wasn't "my understanding" of christianity "that was flawed," it was christianity, itself!

Whatever we do, we are ultimately limited to our own individual experience in everything.

The way YOU approached Christianity -- "I wanted the rules. I wanted to learn the rituals." -- you approached it as an addiction, so this is what it was for you, an addiction.
It does not mean it is this way for everyone, or that it is an inherent trait of the Christian faith.

If I am wrong about this, then why is christianity dying worldwide today??? Only 25% of the world's population are christian. The other 75% are non-christian.

This is fallacious, non causa pro causa.
Show that it indeed follows that Christianity is dying because it is "evil".

Also, show how "christianity is the greatest evil in this world" and how "It has the power to take your mind away, and you become a blood-sucking zombie."

Otherwise, those statements are just your BELIEF, NOT PROOF.

M*W: Maybe that's YOUR impression, but you're wrong. Like I said, I did knew what christianity was all about, and my personal experience as a christian wasn't bad -- not bad at all. I enjoyed it and was committed to it! I traveled the world to learn all about my religion, and I did in the least likely of places. I just wanted to remain ignorant and blissful, but the truth overcame me. It took me some time before I would "give up" my religious addiction, but I finally conquered it, and today I have been clean and sober for nearly 20 years!

You still speak like an addict.

 

[Jenyar]

Hate to say it, but this is nonsensical garbage and nothing more.

From the Wikipedia entry on Normative:

In positivist philosophy, normative is contrasted with its antonym, positive, when describing types of theories, beliefs, or statements. A positive statement is a falsifiable statement that attempts to describe ontology. A normative statement, on the other hand, is a statement regarding how things should or ought to be. Such statements are impossible to prove or disprove, thus forever banishing them from the world of the scientific.

See also: Normative ethics and Norms:
"One major characteristic of norms is that, unlike propositions, they are not descriptively true or false, since norms do not purport to describe anything, but to prescribe, create or change something. Rather, they are prescriptively true or false."​

No amount of further knowledge would have made God's commandment any more or less valid. It was valid because God created Adam and Eve (you don't see them doubting that), and therefore had the sovereign authority to prescribe what their lives should look like. The serpent had no such authority.

Not at all. We often, as parents, tell our very young children not to do something that they would have no way of understanding. If a 3 month old child were to stick it's fingers in the plug socket, the parent would say "Nooooo don't do that", but the child wouldn't understand what the parent was saying. It wouldn't in any way make the child sticking his fingers in the plug socket any different or stop him doing it later. Telling our child not to do it in no way means he/she can understand it.

Does that allow the child to stick his hand into the plug socket? Does it make the consequences of doing that any less serious? You'll tell your child what he needs to know in ways he could understand -- for instance, you would not warn them about the dangers of electricity by showing them voltage tables and explaining the science in Chinese.

We don't ever know enough to make doing the right thing so compellingly "reasonable" that we have no other choice than doing only that. Knowing what is right makes no difference to the desireability of alternatives. God simply determines what is right or wrong, based on His nature and judicial authority.

Animals? No.. Children? Yes.

Children can talk long before they can properly understand 'right' and 'wrong', or the outcome of doing something that an adult would consider 'wrong'. You cannot try and dismiss it, and claim they understood merely on the basis that they could talk, name animals, or repeat what someone else has said. What was said to them is still overly meaningless if there is no valid reason to listen to one over the other, (god/snake) - of which there is no justifiable reason to state that they did. Not to mention that the snake was in fact right, whereas god was wrong. They didn't die that day as god had told them, and did in actuality become "like gods", which is clearly attested to by god. Let's look at it:

"god knows in fact that the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good from evil" --- the snake talking

The bible confirms this just after with:

'So she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened..' --- As you can see, the act confirmed the snake's claims.

Further on god also confirms it:

"Now that man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.." -- as clearly seen, god confirms the snake's claims. Man had become like 'the gods'.

You really have very little to argue against. The snake makes a claim, and both the bible and god attest to it.

Before eating the fruit, they were not like gods, and had no knowledge of good and evil - and as such, until having eaten the fruit, did not have the ability to understand the moral implications that would have gone with it.

They did not need to be like God to accept the authority of God. For what? Would they ever rise above God to judge Him? To justify themselves? God set the standard, and there's no excuse for not listening. This is what they did after they received this wonderful knowledge: Adam blames Eve, Eve blames the serpent, and the talking snake is conspicuously silent. None of this speaks of feeling justified or having a watertight case against God. You'll also notice that the form their promised death takes is very familiar to us:

Gen. 3:19
By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.​

If this is not "death" then what's the deal with "life expectancy"?

Strange you missed out a part. Let me point it out to you:

Cain was a farmer, (soil produce), while Abel was a shepherd, (4:2). After some time, Cain bought an offering, or gift, to present to god. Abel did the same. (4:3)

'yahweh looked with favour on Abel and his offering. But he did not look with favour on Cain and his offering'.

The bible clearly shows that the issue here was with the offering given, not with any sins committed, or bad action on Cain's part. Simply put, Cain offered a gift to god that god didn't want. As I've said before, the dude doesn't like fruit.

Exactly, the offer was simply rejected. No sin had been done, and therefore Cain had no reason to complain.

He then "had a go" at Cain because his offering was not to gods liking. gods speech would have some merit if Cain had actually sinned, but he hadn't - (of course what Cain didn't know, but what we know now, is that offering fruit is actually a sin).

God was warning Cain that this resentment might lead to sin, sin was still only "crouching at his door" (v.7) at that stage. God was doing the same thing He did when He warned Adam and Eve, before they granted authority to their desires and listened to them instead. But now the consequences wasn't only their own death, but the death of an innocent. The power of sin was escalating. Pretty soon it would affect whole generations (Lamech) and nations (Babel).

But through all of this, there is no sign of a sin committed on Cain's part, until after god has a go at him. And the reason god has a go at Cain is clearly because his offering was not good enough.

It was because Cain was angry without reason (v.6), and this was a dangerous mentality.

Sorry, you've lost me.. wait his turn on what? What decision? What?

God chose Abel's offering and not Cain's -- that decision. Cain had no reason to expect that his offering would never be accepted, since any offering was made on faith anyway (Hebrews 11:4). God told Cain to 'keep the faith': "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?". Or do you suggest the answer to God's rethorical question was 'no'?

His own actions were evil? Offering fruit? There's the very point you see. Even john shows that there's a distinct evilness with offering fruit to god. But how would Cain know god doesn't like bananas?

No, murdering Abel was evil. Cain's ability to murder his brother did not come out of nowhere. You don't just suddenly change into a murderer and deny responsibility ("Am I my brother's keeper?"). That arrogance might have already been present when Cain was bringing his offering, which would explain his indignation. If he truly cared about his brother, why not be happy that God blessed him?

Hosea 6:6
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.​

Sure, but as I said, Cain wasn't in the position to take his resentment out on the guy hiding in the clouds. Abel became the fall guy, and as tragic as that is, it could easily have been avoided if only god decided fruit wasn't all that bad. I guess he was just still feeling bitter about the Garden of Eden episode.

So are you saying that the anger has to be taken out on someone? That crime is justified when someone feels wronged?

 

[Woody]

Snakelord said,

Well.. I've heard stress makes you lose hair, smoke more, eat more and drink more - but I've never heard of stress making you sweat.

In my experience it is a "cold prickly" feeling on my forehead, when I know I screwed something up, or when something did not work as intended, and I have a short time to straighten it out or my job is in peril. Call it insecurity if you wish -- you haven't lived my struggle with a family to support in our society where the carnivore executives reign without mercy, collect human scalps, and give themselves payraises instead of passing the savings to shareholders.

You mentioned the carnivorous animals, and their feeding habits. Carnivorism happened after the fall of man, but nature will be restored once again according to Isaiah:


The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

How about that? This verse is a vivid picture of innocence in my head. I remember when I was a small child my father stopped at a place that had rattlesnakes, a bear and a mountain lion in cages. I was only about 5 years old, I wasn't afraid, and I stuck my hand in the lion's cage saying "Here kitty kitty." I wanted to pet the lion (a kid will be able to do that after nature is restored according to Isaiah). In this instance my father ran over, snatched me up, and said "Woody that lion could have taken your arm off!" I, neverthrless, felt very sorry for the animals that were in jail. They looked so unhappy, so unspirited, so "humanized."

I don't have time before my job to give you a complete response to everything, but I will respond to you about God's plan for man. There was Plan A if man obeyed and Plan B if man disobeyed. Both plans involved children but only plan B involved death as a result of sin according to the scriptures. Man chose Plan B and something definately died that day, has been dieing ever since , and will continue to die in the second death (after this life). Death is not just a singularity, it is a perpetual thing that goes on forever. All of us are currently dieing with a disease called "age." If you get enough of it you have a singularity "death" that puts you in the graveyard.

As for God's desire for man to have children, I quote again what Adam said before the fall:

Genesis 2:

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

"Father, mother, wife" -- there's got to be children involved. How does one get to be a father or mother? The fall of humanity happened sometime later in Chapter 3. God didn't rebuke Adam and say "No, No No, you have to sin in order to have children! Adam ya dummy!"

MW you make a very interesting and compelling case. I can't pinpoint where you turned in your life, but I'll try to get to that.

see yall

 

[Yorda]

Ahahhahahhah.... your endless discussions (between atheists and theists) are never going to end!

 

[Woody]

MW,

Tell me about the spiritual humpty-dumpty event that teetered your faith in Christ. Did you feel like you had no freedom to be yourself? Did you feel like you had to be a slave and never enjoy youself? What was it?

 

[SnakeLord]

No amount of further knowledge would have made God's commandment any more or less valid. It was valid because God created Adam and Eve (you don't see them doubting that), and therefore had the sovereign authority to prescribe what their lives should look like. The serpent had no such authority.

I go back to my earlier comment: "Nonsensical garbage". I think the matter here is clarified sufficiently enough by the following: "since norms do not purport to describe anything".

It doesn't say anything of value here, but merely sidesteps the issue.

You seem more focused on telling me what god's rights are, but I have not questioned his rights or position of authority. He can do whatever he wants to do, I have no problem with that.

god having total authority doesn't change the fact that until they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil they had no knowledge of good and evil, and thus had no way to determine that eating from the tree was a bad thing to do. At that stage they also wouldn't have been able to determine who had the greater authority, (god/snake), and no way of distinguishing which, if any, they should listen to.

You state that "no further knowledge would make god's commandment any more or less valid", and while I do not dispute that, it doesn't negate my debate in any way whatsoever - which is that they did not understand all of that before eaing the fruit.

Does that allow the child to stick his hand into the plug socket?

Completely irrelevant to the debate. I have not once implied that they were allowed to because of their lack of knowledge, I have merely shown beyond any doubt that they did not have the knowledge required to make any informed decision. Whether they're allowed to or not, does not change that fact in any way whatsoever.

Does it make the consequences of doing that any less serious?

Again, it's an irrelevant argument.

You'll tell your child what he needs to know in ways he could understand -- for instance, you would not warn them about the dangers of electricity by showing them voltage tables and explaining the science in Chinese.

I wouldn't, god did. I understand it was his first attempt at being a father, and I do understand that because he's god he can do whatever he wants to do, but it doesn't in any way detract from my debate. He gave rules when they clearly did not have the ability to comprehend in moral terms, which is no different to explaining the danger of electricity to your child in Chinese.

Knowing what is right makes no difference to the desireability of alternatives.

But assuming that god actually wanted them to obey, having knowledge of right and wrong/good and evil is an absolute requirement.

I have a daughter and a pet tiger. I told my daughter not to do something, and having an understanding of right and wrong, she had the ability to make an informed decision over whether to listen to me or ignore me. Out of love and understanding, she 'obeyed'. My pet tiger on the other hand ate the neighbours and a few pedestrians before trashing my house, ripping the car to shreds, and generally causing all round chaos. I cannot blame the tiger for not comprehending what I said to him. When I said: "Don't eat the neighbours, that's bad", he didn't listen, even though I am the authority in this household. My being the authority, and my understanding of good and evil doesn't mean anything to him. Nothing, nada, zip, a banana.

Yes, I make the rules, and his lack of understanding those rules doesn't save him. I took him outside and shot him in the head. None of that changes the fact that he did not understand what I was asking of him, or any moral implications his actions might bring into question.

Again I can only say that arguing what rights god has, or what penalty should be given are completely irrelevant to the argument.

They did not need to be like God to accept the authority of God. For what? Would they ever rise above God to judge Him?

This is a seemingly dangerous fixation you have on god. god is not on trial here, nor is his position of authority in jeopardy. I can only refer you to the tiger example in the hopes you'll understand it and realise god isn't the issue here. I've already concurred that he can do whatever he wants to do. He can drown, plague or curse humans all he likes, just like I can shoot my tiger if I so choose - it's not of relevance here. But it remains that they had no way with which to establish any value to god's rules. It would be utterly meaningless to them. I see you cannot refute or argue that case, instead thinking this gives call for you to act as god's legal defence. While it is his right to do so, the fact of the matter is that Adam and Eve were scammed.

God set the standard, and there's no excuse for not listening.

Funnily enough, I said exactly the same thing to my pet tiger.

This is what they did after they received this wonderful knowledge: Adam blames Eve, Eve blames the serpent, and the talking snake is conspicuously silent. None of this speaks of feeling justified or having a watertight case against God.

There seems to be one thing in your quote you didn't even notice. I shall re-state it for you now:

"This is what they did after they received this wonderful knowledge"

Upon receiving the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve were in the position to understand what they had done wrong, and went on to inform god of what happened. Before eating the fruit, they couldn't have done so.

Adam says Eve gave it to him and Eve blames the serpent. This is fully supported by the biblical text before that. The serpent tempts Eve, and Eve gives it to Adam. What are you claiming they should have said? That it accidentally fell into their mouths? That there was no snake? What?

Are you now stating that they should knowingly lie to god?

Nope, instead they were honest about the events, which is a sign that they had finally come to have knowledge of good and evil.

Kindly show me where there is any fault in telling the truth.

By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food

Personally I just go to Tesco's, no sweat involved. In fact, I never sweat other than when I'm lying on a beach in a hot country. Guess god likes me.

until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.

I am dust? While my medical knowledge isn't all that great, I find error with that statement. Nor was I "taken" from the ground.

If this is not "death" then what's the deal with "life expectancy"?

The above biblical quote has no relevance to life expectancy. My statements concerning life expectancy were about how it's rising as time goes by. What that has to do with dust I'll never know.

Exactly, the offer was simply rejected. No sin had been done, and therefore Cain had no reason to complain.

He didn't complain. He looked angry and downcast. You would look the same if god turned you down. Is there a problem with looking upset because someone threw the gift you had given them back in your face? I bet you'd do the same if your wife or parents did it, so how much more upsetting if the one and only god did it?

god then has a pop at him telling him that 'looking downcast' means he's done something wrong, and if he hadn't done something wrong he'd hold his head up high. This simply comes down to god's insensitivity, (which, before you complain, is his right). All Cain did was offer a gift to someone overly self centered.

God was warning Cain that this resentment might lead to sin, sin was still only "crouching at his door" (v.7) at that stage.

Sure, but someone should have warned god that being an asshole might lead to resentment which might lead to sin. The entire chain of events could have been avoided if god had have shown some manners.

The power of sin was escalating. Pretty soon it would affect whole generations (Lamech) and nations (Babel).

Sure, even back then god was meaningless. I mean that is extreme.. Later on when Moses goes up a hill for the weekend, it doesn't take long for people to make a cow and worship it.. god has no control over his creation. Give them two days and he's nothing more than a fart in the breeze. I wonder why that is.

All his anger, all his jealousy and wrath, and people just don't care. He would win the vote for universes single biggest failure, no matter how much annihilating he does. Worse than that, even many of his angels decided he was a waste of space.

What kind of dude is this that can't get respect and love from humans or angels?

I'm sorry, but he's clearly doing something wrong.

It was because Cain was angry without reason (v.6), and this was a dangerous mentality.

Without reason? Try again.

God chose Abel's offering and not Cain's -- that decision. Cain had no reason to expect that his offering would never be accepted, since any offering was made on faith anyway (Hebrews 11:4).

All due respect, but Cain never got the chance to read Hebrews 11:4.

"If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?". Or do you suggest the answer to God's rethorical question was 'no'?

But this would suggest he was doing something wrong.. which he wasn't. And yet regardless he wasn't 'accepted'. As a result, the answer can only be 'no'.

No, murdering Abel was evil. Cain's ability to murder his brother did not come out of nowhere. You don't just suddenly change into a murderer and deny responsibility ("Am I my brother's keeper?"). That arrogance might have already been present when Cain was bringing his offering, which would explain his indignation. If he truly cared about his brother, why not be happy that God blessed him?

I should show you the paperwork and indeed the suffering of those who face personal rejection. It's not a pleasant sight. Any human with some understanding of other humans will know this, and yet god seemingly did not, or chose to ignore the details - as we have come to expect from him. I think both you and god should spend some time getting to know humans a little better.

That arrogance might have already been present when Cain was bringing his offering, which would explain his indignation.

Unsupported assumption.

So are you saying that the anger has to be taken out on someone?

Nope.

That crime is justified when someone feels wronged?

Nope.

I never justified it, or said it had to be done. In fact on my last post I called it "tragic" and on the post before that I clearly stated Cain had done wrong and had no excuse for doing it.

What I was saying is that god plays a major part in the events that could should have and would have been avoided if it weren't for god's petty rejection of a gift. It might be worth pointing out that the rules and regulations concerning offerings was not clarified until long after the death of Cain. As a result, Cain wouldn't have known about god's fixation concerning burning meat. It is likely to state that if he had have known, he would have just cooked a cow for god instead of offering a mango.

It is beyond me why god even demands people to burn cows for him, but that's another debate altogether.

 

[Woody]

MW,

I think I have the answer now:

You say you were at one time a born again Christian. You are now a self-proclaimed athiest, which means you do not believe there is a God. There are only two possibilities for this situation, and correct me if I am wrong:

1) Either you are not sane and had a vision (and I don't think that was the case) or,

2) More likely, you never knew God in a personal way. You only thought you knew Him when it was really just yourself that you were praying to.

Sometimes I wonder the same, sometimes I am really just praying to myself and hoping for the best. But other times I know my prayers are heard and answered. I have always believed there is a literal hell, but I have not always believed in a literal savior. Early in my life I substituted evolution for God, but I was sadly disappointed. I realized that my life is too short to wait for all the answers. I have to trust something. This universe is bigger than all of us. We are here for a reason. We are not random events in a callous universe. Go to the time when you were a small child -- everything seemed so perfect, that is because it was perfect.

Because of miracles that have happened in my own life I can only accept the fact that there has to be a God. How many times I would have died if he were not there! I will share some of those experiences with you and you tell me there is no supernatural!

 

[SnakeLord]

Now to Woody:

- you haven't lived my struggle with a family to support in our society where the carnivore executives reign without mercy, collect human scalps, and give themselves payraises instead of passing the savings to shareholders.

No offence but that sounds very materialistic, (something christianity is against - apparrently).

But in reality they're doing you a favour:

mat 19:24 / mark 10:25 / luke 18:25: Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Trust me, you don't want the pay rise. As the bible says, all you need is bread:

Proverbs 30:8 - give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread.

You have bread I assume?

You mentioned the carnivorous animals, and their feeding habits. Carnivorism happened after the fall of man

While I can only chuckle at the thought of a tiger with molar teeth, do you have any biblical quotes stating that all animals in the G of E were vegetarians?

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

So animals go to heaven? Does it matter if they've sinned? What constitutes an animal sin do you think? I also wonder what they'd do all day in heaven with no need to hunt for food.. I guess an eternity of ball licking is what they have to look forward to.

How about that? This verse is a vivid picture of innocence in my head. I remember when I was a small child my father stopped at a place that had rattlesnakes, a bear and a mountain lion in cages. I was only about 5 years old, I wasn't afraid, and I stuck my hand in the lion's cage saying "Here kitty kitty." I wanted to pet the lion (a kid will be able to do that after nature is restored according to Isaiah). In this instance my father ran over, snatched me up, and said "Woody that lion could have taken your arm off!" I, neverthrless, felt very sorry for the animals that were in jail. They looked so unhappy, so unspirited, so "humanized."

Is it your 'image' that a vegetarian lion's sole afterlife will consist of sitting down letting you stroke him? I'm unsure who that's more boring for, you or the lion. I mean it's not like he can occupy his time reading a good novel or watching reruns of ER.

There was Plan A if man obeyed and Plan B if man disobeyed. Both plans involved children but only plan B involved death as a result of sin according to the scriptures. Man chose Plan B and something definately died that day, has been dieing ever since , and will continue to die in the second death (after this life). Death is not just a singularity, it is a perpetual thing that goes on forever. All of us are currently dieing with a disease called "age." If you get enough of it you have a singularity "death" that puts you in the graveyard.

It shows the main difference between god and man. Killing someone once is generally sufficient for humans.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

I guess this would take some time though, given that until after the 'fall' they didn't even know they were naked.

 

[Woody]

SL said,

I guess this would take some time though, given that until after the 'fall' they didn't even know they were naked.

Animals don't know they are naked, and they don't have any trouble reproducing.

So animals go to heaven?

No not really, the earth will be a new place after it is restored, and carnivores will be herbavores, living on the new earth.

Apparantly there were predators prior to man that killed and were killed. The fossil record indicates this anyway. They did not harm man, however. I've heard it said that T-Rex and other monsterous carnivores were eliminated so man could rule the earth.

The bible record indicates that Adam and Eve were originally made to live indefinately.

 

[SnakeLord]

Animals don't know they are naked, and they don't have any trouble reproducing.

I anticipated this response from you, the very purpose of which should be evident.

Here you somewhat liken Adam and Eve before the fall to animals, (whether intentional or not). This goes against your earlier arguments over how intelligent Adam and Eve were - not only in naming all the animals, but being able to talk aswell.

You're trying to play both sides, but that doesn't work.

On the one hand they were so 'animal like' and clearly of little intelligence because they didn't even know of their nakedness, (indeed like chimpanzees), and on the other hand were, according to you, really smart - even so far as to claim them "perfect", which merely belittles the very meaning of the word.

You even argued against this very issue a bit earlier:

Do you really think animals understand the B&Bs. Make an intelligence comparison: the chimpanzee (considered the smartest ape) has a mentality equivalent to a 5 year old child. How many five year old children understand the facts of life? Come on, guy.

You then ask:

Based on the Genesis account, and the discourse, what was the mental age of Adam before he ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil?

The answer would be 5 no?

He could be likened to a chimp, not understanding what nakedness was. His ability to talk doesn't in any way help him.. all animals can talk, (in their own way). Did you know bees dance to provide directions to other bees? That is very sophisticated communication that humans could in no way decipher. Whales communicate over a distance of like 4 miles.. far beyond the ability of humans.

While his ability to make sounds with his mouth does not credit him with intelligence, his lack of understanding about his own nudity shows he was not above the animals, and you rightly point that out.

At this stage of the game then, what would it be that separates man from the animals? Wouldn't it possibly be having knowledge of good and evil? Having a moral center?

When you were a child in the zoo, would that lion have sat down and contemplated the moral implications of biting your arm off if you told him it was a bad thing to do? Of course not, and that is where we differ, (with thanks to the snake).

You also say:

My eight year old daughter is sitting here with me, and I asked her if she understands the facts of life. She says she does not. When I was about her age, my father explained the facts of life to me, and neither did I really understand them, even after some explanation of anatomy.

Now tell me Woody, does your eight year old daughter, who doesn't understand the birds and the bees, understand right and wrong?

I have the feeling you'll say yes. My daughter is three years younger than that but knows the difference.

Now imagine not only does she not understand the "b&b's", but she has no understanding of good/evil, right/wrong. Neither would prevent her from talking - but you know as well as I do she would be as close to being an animal that any human could ever be.

At 8 years old, even after some anatomy being explained to you, you still didn't understand, (your words), so perhaps we should question at what age you did understand, at what age you recognised nakedness. 10? 12? 15?

Yet here you are trying to claim great intelligence to a man, apparently older than 10, who doesn't have the slightest clue.

The strangest thing of all is that you said:

I see no difference between the maturity level before and after.

When clearly you do. It goes hand in hand with your own maturing.. From the time you didn't understand nakedness to the time when you did. The former you state was when you were just a child - and there is the answer.

Like animals/Like children. Take your pick.

No not really, the earth will be a new place after it is restored, and carnivores will be herbavores, living on the new earth.

Ah yes, you speak of the golden city that comes down out of the sky and lands on the new earth. So basically what you're saying is all those fit for heaven will live in the golden city, and then they can leave heaven whenever they choose to go and pet the carrot eating tyrannosaurs who live outside of the city of heaven on normal land?

Apparantly there were predators prior to man that killed and were killed.

The bible makes no mention of this, and so it would make a person wonder what else the biblical writers missed out on. Perhaps a further few billion years of events that came "prior to man"?

The bible record indicates that Adam and Eve were originally made to live indefinately.

Where?